I've known people who've taken jobs with benefits vs jobs without benefits. But I've never known someone comparing two jobs and saying "well, this one has a $500 deductible and this other one has $1000 deductible, but the first one also has 2% matching vested over 4 years, and the second one has 4% matching vested over 3 years, so I'll go to job X".
No, but there are people who say "this one offers to cover costs for my medical condition, and this one doesn't". And if those costs run into 10s of thousands of dollars, that kind of matters.
And if you're bringing any smarts to the table, you know what conditions you're especially at risk for, too, so presumably you do pick the insurance plan that is most likely to protect you from catastrophic financial losses.
(And if you make less than the tech industry usually does - say, only $25K a year - that $1000 deductible sure is a lot more expensive than the $500 one)
If you redefine "benefits", you might have a point.
Many jobs have health insurance, and thus "benefits". Many health insurances are rather picky with what they do/don't cover. If you claim that only "insurance that covers what I need covered, at a price I deem acceptable", can be called a "benefit", then sure, your mention is valid.
I've done that. If the jobs are relatively equal in other aspects, it makes sense to look at the benefits. Also, I've found that the quality of benefits a company offers is a good indication of how well employees are treated. Generally, companies with awful benefits don't think very highly of their employees.
I've known people who've taken jobs with benefits vs jobs without benefits. But I've never known someone comparing two jobs and saying "well, this one has a $500 deductible and this other one has $1000 deductible, but the first one also has 2% matching vested over 4 years, and the second one has 4% matching vested over 3 years, so I'll go to job X".